In the case of Mitchell et al. v. Hampel et al., 1927, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a patent for an invention that improved upon existing technology could be invalidated because it was not novel or non-obvious enough to warrant protection under patent law. The invention in question involved improvements made on a machine used in manufacturing shoes, specifically one that attached heels to shoe soles more efficiently and accurately than previous models. The defendants argued that these improvements were merely obvious modifications of pre-existing machines and thus did not meet the criteria for obtaining a patent. The court ruled in favor of Mitchell and his co-plaintiffs, upholding their patents' validity by stating that even though an improvement may seem simple or obvious after it has been made, this does not necessarily mean it would have been apparent before its creation. Therefore, such inventions can still qualify as being novel and non-obvious enough to merit legal protection under US Patent Law.

The dissenting opinion in the case of MITCHELL et al. v. HAMPEL et al., 1927, argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling was incorrect due to an improper interpretation of state law regarding property rights and inheritance. The dissent contended that under Texas law, where the case originated, a widow has no right or claim over her deceased husband's separate property unless explicitly stated in his will or there are surviving children from their marriage - neither condition being met in this instance. Therefore, they believed Mrs. Hampel had no legal standing to sue for possession of Mr. Mitchell’s land after his death as she was not entitled to inherit it according to state laws on intestate succession (inheritance without a will). They also disagreed with the majority view about 'community property', arguing instead that any properties acquired during marriage should be considered separate if bought with funds earned before matrimony.